As counter-intuitive as it can sound, I guess in the previous years we were giving the people who predicted a draw both the point for the W/L/D prediction and the point for the correct goal difference: someone correct me if I remember wrong. Of course we could decide to change that, because it didn't make much sense, but this way by predicting a draw you can never get as much points as by predicting another result (since for a W/L you could have one point for only getting the winner, two points for also nailing the goal difference or the correct number of goals from one team, three points for the exact results; for a D, you would only get one point for predicting the draw or three (two?) points for the exact result).
I did have this question when tallying the scores, but it seemed odd to me to get the 2 points for just guessing a draw, and only 1 point for a W/L. But, I'm happy to go back and change them. And there are 3 points for the exact result of a draw. I guess if I do NOT go back and change them then there's no way to get 2 points from predicting a draw, but really then the rules should say 2 points for exact goal difference or correct prediction of a draw, and 1 point for W/L, there being no way to get 1 point from a draw then. Just let me know which way is correct, and I'll tally it accordingly.
I checked the formulas (which go back to before I was participating) and the system is: 3 points for exact score 2 points for the correct goal differential (so, if a draw is predicted, the GD would be 0 and if that is the actual result, the point award is 2) 1 point for a correct win or loss prediction -- the rules say for a win, loss, or draw prediction, but so far as a draw is concerned that is not how the formulas actually worked 1 point for the correct score for one team, which is awarded only if there is not an exact score or correct goal differential award
Yes, sorry, ya'll are right. While you were typing that, I also went back to last year's to check on how it was scored previously. So corrected scores are below, with @lunatica still in the lead:
Predictions for next games: UTA 1 v RGN 0 HOU 1 v SB 0 I could have gone with 2-0 for each game, but took the conservative route.
The thought process behind the 2pts/draw is that draws are relatively* uncommon, so it's worth the extra GD point as well. *Obviously "relative" has a fair amount of wiggle room, but considering that people start complaining about a league when it has over ~20% of matches end in draws, it's a fair point. Often enough, draws are generally rarer than away wins.
I checked my score (as I guess everyone should do to help @lil_one) and they are now correct, based on the system of previous years. I am probably going to predict the 8th of July matches tomorrow.
My prediction for tomorrow's games (not sure how much to rely on official injury report, after Daly's return last game: this time she's cautiously given as "questionable"): UTA 1 RGN 1 NJ 2 HOU 1
For Wednesday the 8th UTA 1 RGN 1 ........the 3-5-2 will baffle this Reign team that don't play well together, but between Jenkins, Balcer, and Taylor, they'll finally get one NJ 0 HOU 2 ........it is hard for me to admit how bad Sky Blue is. Even if HOU rests Daly and Groom, Latsko is dangerous and so is Prince, if she plays.
For the next round of games: Wash 1 v Hou 0 Chi 1 v Utah 1 Port 1 v Rei 0 NC 1 v NJNY 0 If these were to be the results and scores, then if my calculations are right and I have applied the tiebreaker rules properly, the teams would end up seeded as: 1. NC (12) 2. Wash (7) 3. Ut (5) 4. Port (5) 5. NJNY (4) 6. Hou (4) 7. Rei (4) 8. Chi (2)
It looks like with my three points I outplayed everyone with this Wednesday's predictions (everyone else made 0 or 1, if I made correct calculations). I had the feeling the teams with less points would have rebounded, so I did my thing by playing the "reasonable surprise" card: I had a 2-1 prediction for the NJ-HOU match; I should have been as much consequent and predict a OL Reign's win also, but I chickened out and had a draw instead (on the other hand, it almost was a draw, if it wasn't for ten final minutes of brilliance from OL). I started coming back from behind, but it will be a long run! Edit: also, I've beaten the four people who forgot to predict these games.
With being the only one to correct predict a Sky Blue win, you're now only a few points behind! Lunatica and STT are now tied in the lead:
Don't remember who recently pointed out (maybe @lil-one herself) that we tend to receive injury report updates quite late from the NWSL website. I agree, since we're still at the 4th of July update right now. I don't want to wait until tomorrow to make my prediction, but I reserve the right to change some of my single predictions should the injury report add some relevant/unexpected info (don't we have a smilie for *pedantic*? ): WAS 2 HOU 1 CHI 2 UTA 0 RGN 1 POR 0 NJ 1 NCC 1
Alright, for today's matches, chatter on Twitter is that Dash and Royals are healthy while DiBiasi, Scalpa, Lavelle, Nagasato, Colaprico, and Davidson are all out or questionable. With that in mind: WAS 1-2 HOU CHI 1-2 UTA
Sun-Mon 7/12-13 WAS 1 HOU 2 CHI 2 UTA 0 RGN 1 POR 1 NJ 0 NCC 3 ......................I wavered, initially HOU 2-1 due to veterans, then 1-1 due to being the teams that came to win this, then HOU 2-1 due to injuries ..................... seven days "rest" for NC
I found in the past that sometimes it happens that teams that have played mid-week kept their "rythm" better than teams that have "rested" for a whole week. Not sure why: maybe actual competition keeps you fitter than just training.